The terms radical center (or radical centre), radical middle, and radical centrism refer to a political philosophy that arose in the Western nations, predominantly the United States and the United Kingdom, in the latter third of the 20th century. At first it was defined in a variety of ways, but at the beginning of the 21st century a number of texts and think tanks gave the philosophy a more developed cast.[1][2]

The "radical" in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[3] The "centrism" refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.[4] Thus one radical centrist text defines radical centrism as "idealism without illusions".[5][nb 1]

Criticism of radical centrist policies and strategies has mounted as the political philosophy has developed. One common criticism is that radical centrist policies are only marginally different from conventional centrist policies.[10] Another criticism is that the radical centrist penchant for third parties is naive and self-defeating.[10] Some observers see radical centrism as primarily a process of catalyzing dialogue and fresh thinking among polarized people and groups.[11]

One of the first uses of the term "radical middle" in a political context came in 1962, when cartoonist Jules Feiffer employed it to mock what he saw as the timid and pretentious outlook of the American political class.[23][24][nb 5] One of the first people to develop a positive definition was Renata Adler, a staff writer for The New Yorker. In the introduction to her second collection of essays, Toward a Radical Middle (1969), she presented radical centrism as a healing radicalism.[26] It rejected the violent posturing and rhetoric of the 1960s, she said, in favor of such "corny" values as "reason, decency, prosperity, human dignity, [and human] contact".[27] She called for the "reconciliation" of the white working class and African-Americans.[27]

In the 1970s, sociologist Donald I. Warren described the radical center as consisting of those "middle American radicals" who were suspicious of big government, the national media, and academics, as well as rich people and predatory corporations. Although they might vote for Democrats or Republicans, or for populists like George Wallace, they felt politically homeless and were looking for leaders who would address their concerns.[28][nb 6]

In the 1980s and 1990s, several authors contributed their understandings to the concept of the radical center. For example, futurist Marilyn Ferguson added a holistic dimension to the concept when she said, "[The] Radical Center ... is not neutral, not middle-of-the-road, but a view of the whole road".[31][nb 7] Sociologist Alan Wolfe located the creative part of the political spectrum at the center: "The extremes of right and left know where they stand, while the center furnishes what is original and unexpected."[33] African-American theorist Stanley Crouch upset many political thinkers when he pronounced himself a "radical pragmatist".[34] He explained, "I affirm whatever I think has the best chance of working, of being both inspirational and unsentimental, of reasoning across the categories of false division and beyond the decoy of race".[35]

In the 1990s, political independents Jesse Ventura, Angus King, and Lowell Weicker became governors of American states. According to John Avlon, they pioneered the combination of fiscal prudence and social tolerance that has served as a model for radical centrist governance ever since.[30] They also developed a characteristic style, a combination of "common sense and maverick appeal".[36][nb 8]

In his influential[39] 1995 Newsweek cover story, "Stalking the Radical Middle", journalist Joe Klein described radical centrists as angrier and more frustrated than conventional Democrats and Republicans. He said they share four broad goals: getting money out of politics, balancing the budget, restoring civility, and figuring out how to run government better. He also said their concerns were fueling "what is becoming a significant intellectual movement, nothing less than an attempt to replace the traditional notions of liberalism and conservatism".[40][nb 9][nb 10]

Some radical centrist thinkers do not equate radical centrism with the Third Way. In Britain, many do not see themselves as social democrats. Most prominently, British radical-centrist politician Nick Clegg has made it clear he does not consider himself an heir to Tony Blair,[17] and Richard Reeves, Clegg's longtime advisor, emphatically rejects social democracy.[46]

In the United States, the situation is different because the term Third Way was adopted by the Democratic Leadership Council and other moderate Democrats.[47] However, most U.S. radical centrists also avoid the term. Ted Halstead and Michael Lind's introduction to radical centrist politics fails to mention it,[48] and Lind subsequently accused the organized moderate Democrats of siding with the "center-right" and Wall Street.[29] Radical centrists have expressed dismay with what they see as "split[ting] the difference",[40] "triangulation",[29][49] and other supposed practices of what some of them call the "mushy middle".[50][51][nb 11]

The first years of the 21st century saw publication of four introductions to radical centrist politics: Ted Halstead and Michael Lind's The Radical Center (2001), Matthew Miller's The Two Percent Solution (2003), John Avlon's Independent Nation (2004), and Mark Satin's Radical Middle (2004).[53][54] These books attempted to take the concept of radical centrism beyond the stage of "cautious gestures"[55] and journalistic observation and define it as a political philosophy.[1][2]

The authors came to their task from diverse political backgrounds: Avlon had been a speechwriter for New York Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani;[56] Miller had been a business consultant before serving in President Bill Clinton's budget office;[57] Lind had been an exponent of Harry Truman-style "national liberalism";[58] Halstead had run a think tank called Redefining Progress;[52] and Satin had co-drafted the U.S. Green Party's foundational political statement, "Ten Key Values".[59] There is, however, a generational bond: all these authors were between 31 and 41 years of age when their books were published (except for Satin, who was nearing 60).

While the four books do not speak with one voice, among them they express assumptions, analyses, policies, and strategies that helped set the parameters for radical centrism as a 21st-century political philosophy:

Such thinking cannot be divorced from the world as it is, or from tempered understandings of human nature. A mixture of idealism and realism is needed.[67] "Idealism without realism is impotent", says John Avlon. "Realism without idealism is empty".[4]

A commitment to market-based solutions in health care, energy, the environment, etc., so long as the solutions are carefully regulated by government to serve the public good.[83][84] The policy goal, says Matthew Miller, is to "harness market forces for public purposes".[7]

A commitment to provide jobs for everyone willing to work, whether by subsidizing jobs in the private sector[85] or by creating jobs in the public sector.[86]

A new political majority can be built, whether it be seen to consist largely of Avlon's political independents,[91] Satin's "caring persons",[92] Miller's balanced and pragmatic individuals,[63] or Halstead and Lind's triad of disaffected voters, enlightened business leaders, and young people.[93]

National political leadership is important; local and nonprofit activism is not enough.[94][95]

Political process reform is also important – for example, implementing rank-order voting in elections and providing free media time to candidates.[96][97]

A radical centrist party should be created, assuming one of the major parties cannot simply be won over by radical centrist thinkers and activists.[73][nb 12]

In Britain, the news magazine The Economist positions itself as radical centrist. An editorial ("leader") in 2012 declared, in bolded type, "A new form of radical centrist politics is needed to tackle inequality without hurting economic growth."[109] An essay on The Economist 's website the following year, introduced by the editor, argues that the magazine had always "com[e] ... from what we like to call the radical centre".[110]

Many books are offering radical centrist perspectives and policy proposals on specific topics. Some examples:

Foreign policy. In Ethical Realism (2006), British liberal Anatol Lieven and U.S. conservative John Hulsman advocate a foreign policy based on modesty, principle, and seeing ourselves as others see us.[111]

Environmentalism. In Break Through (2007), environmental strategists Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger call on activists to become more comfortable with pragmatism, high-technology, and aspirations for human greatness.[112]

Underachievement among minorities. In Winning the Race (2005), linguist John McWhorter says that many African-Americans are negatively affected by a cultural phenomenon he calls "therapeutic alienation".[113]

Economics. In The Origin of Wealth (2006), Eric Beinhocker of the Institute for New Economic Thinking portrays the economy as a dynamic but imperfectly self-regulating evolutionary system, and suggests policies that could support benign socio-economic evolution.[114]

International relations. In How to Run the World (2011), scholar Parag Khanna argues that the emerging world order should not be run from the top down, but by a galaxy of nonprofit, nation-state, corporate, and individual actors cooperating for their mutual benefit.[115]

Defining others as enemies. In The Righteous Mind (2012), psychologist Jonathan Haidt attempts to explain "why good people are divided by politics and religion".[116]

Political organizing. In Voice of the People (2008), conservative activist Lawrence Chickering and liberal attorney James Turner attempt to lay the groundwork for a grassroots "transpartisan" movement across the U.S.[117]

What one person can do. In his memoir Radical Middle: Confessions of an Accidental Revolutionary (2010), South African journalist Denis Beckett tries to show that one person can make a difference in a situation many might regard as hopeless.[118]

Some commentators identify Ross Perot's 1992 U.S. Presidential campaign as the first radical middle national campaign.[40][119] However, many radical centrist authors are not enthusiastic about Ross Perot. Matthew Miller acknowledges that Perot had enough principle to support a gasoline tax hike,[120] Halstead and Lind note that he popularized the idea of balancing the budget,[121] and John Avlon says he crystallized popular distrust of partisan extremes.[122] But none of those authors examines Perot's ideas or campaigns in depth, and Mark Satin does not mention Perot at all.

Joe Klein mocks one of Perot's campaign gaffes and says he was not a sufficiently substantial figure.[40] Miller characterizes Perot as a rich, self-financed lone wolf.[123] By contrast, what most radical centrists say they want in political action terms is the building of a grounded political movement.[124][125]

By the decade of the 2010s, radical centrists were engaged in a variety of actions in the English-speaking nations:

For the left, an obsession with the state. For the right, a worship of the market. But as liberals, we place our faith in people. People with power and opportunity in their hands. Our opponents try to divide us with their outdated labels of left and right. But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal. We are liberals and we own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics. Our politics is the politics of the radical centre.[127]

In the fall of 2012, Clegg's longtime policy advisor elaborated on the differences between Clegg's identity as a "radical liberal" and traditional social democracy.[46]

In Australia, Aboriginal lawyer Noel Pearson is building an explicitly radical centrist movement among Aborigines.[128] The movement is seeking more assistance from the Australian state, but is also seeking to convince individual Aborigines to take more responsibility for their lives.[129]

In the U.S., the radical centrist movement is being played out in the national media. In 2010, for example, The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman called for "a Tea Party of the radical center", an organized national pressure group.[130] At The Washington Post, columnist Matthew Miller was explaining "Why we need a third party of (radical) centrists".[131][nb 15]

In 2011 Friedman championed Americans Elect, an insurgent group of radical centrist Democrats, Republicans and independents who were hoping to run an independent Presidential candidate in 2012.[106] Meanwhile, Miller offered "The third-party stump speech we need".[135] In his book The Price of Civilization (2011), Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs called for the creation of a third U.S. party, an "Alliance for the Radical Center".[136]

While no independent third-party Presidential candidate emerged in 2012, John Avlon emphasized the fact that independent voters remain the fastest-growing portion of the electorate.[105]

Even before the 21st century, some observers were speaking out against what they saw as radical centrism.[nb 16] In 1998, for example, Belgian political theorist Chantal Mouffe argued that passionate and often bitter conflict between left and right is a necessary feature of any democracy.[144][nb 17]

Some think radical centrist ideas are too different from current policies. Sam Tanenhaus the editor of The New York Times Book Review called the proposals in Halstead and Lind's book "utopian".[2] According to Ed Kilgore, the policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council, Mark Satin's Radical Middle book "ultimately places him in the sturdy tradition of 'idealistic' American reformers who think smart and principled people unencumbered by political constraints can change everything".[146]

Radical centrist attitudes have also been criticized. For example, many bloggers have characterized Thomas Friedman's columns on radical centrism as elitist and glib.[10] Former South African freedom fighter Duma Ndlovu finds "warmth" and "humanity" in South African journalist Denis Beckett's memoir Radical Middle, but he also finds "a bit of self-righteousness ... because Denis does no wrong".[150]

Some observers question the wisdom of seeking consensus, post-partisanship, or reconciliation in political life.[10] Political scientist Jonathan Bernstein argues that American democratic theory from the time of James Madison's Federalist No. 10 (1787) has been based on the acknowledgement of faction and the airing of debate, and he sees no reason to change now.[10]

Other observers feel radical centrists are misreading the political situation. For example, conservative journalist Ramesh Ponnuru says liberals and conservatives are not ideologically opposed to such radical centrist measures as limiting entitlements and raising taxes to cover national expenditures. Instead, voters are opposed to them, and things will change when voters can be convinced otherwise.[151]

The third-party strategy favored by many U.S. radical centrists has been criticized as impractical and diversionary. According to these critics, what is needed instead is (a) reform of the legislative process, and (b) candidates in existing political parties who will support radical centrist ideas.[10] The specific third-party vehicle favored by many U.S. radical centrists in 2012 – Americans Elect[152] – was criticized as an "elite-driven party"[10] supported by a "dubious group of Wall Street multi-millionaires".[147]

After spending time with a variety of radical centrists, journalist Alec MacGillis concluded that their perspectives are so disparate that they could never come together to build a viable political organization.[153]

Some radical centrists are less than sanguine about their future. One concern is co-optation. For example, Michael Lind worries that the enthusiasm for the term radical center, on the part of "arbiters of the conventional wisdom", may signal a weakening of the radical vision implied by the term.[29]

Another concern is passion. John Avlon fears that some centrists cannot resist the lure of passionate partisans, whom he calls "wingnuts".[154] By contrast, Mark Satin worries that radical centrism, while "thoroughly sensible", lacks an "animating passion" – and claims there has never been a successful political movement without one.[155]

AmericaSpeaks is one of several organizations catalyzing dialogues and fresh thinking among often polarized people and groups.

Some radical centrists, such as mediator Mark Gerzon[156] and activist Joseph F. McCormick, see radical centrism as primarily a commitment to process.[66][157] Their approach is to facilitate processes of structured dialogue among polarized people and groups, from the neighborhood level on up.[66][158] A major goal is to enable dialogue participants to come up with new perspectives and solutions that can address every party's core interests.[66][159] Both ecologist Gary Nabhan and Onward Christian Athletes author Tom Krattenmaker speak of the radical center as that (metaphoric) space where such dialogue and innovation can occur.[11][160]

^An international evangelical movement, the Association of Vineyard Churches, describes itself as "radical middle" because it believes that spiritual truth is found by holding supposedly contradictory concepts in tension. Examples include head vs. heart, planning vs. being Spirit-led, and standing for truth vs. standing for Unity.[15]

^In the 1980s, Satin's own Washington, D.C.-based political newsletter, New Options, described itself as "post-liberal".[20] Culture critic Annie Gottlieb says it urged the New Left and New Age to "evolve into a 'New Center'".[21]

^According to journalist John Judis, the first person to employ the term "radical centrism" was an American sociologist, Seymour Martin Lipset, who used it in his book Political Man (1960) to help explain European fascism.[25]

^Two years later, another prominent futurist, John Naisbitt, wrote in bolded type, "The political left and right are dead; all the action is being generated by a radical center" .[32]

^By the end of the 20th century, some mainstream politicians were cloaking themselves in the language of the radical center. For example, in 1996 former U.S. Defense Secretary Elliot Richardson stated, "I am a moderate – a radical moderate. I believe profoundly in the ultimate value of human dignity and equality".[37] At a conference in Berlin, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien declared, "I am the radical center".[38]

^Subsequent to Klein's article, some political writers posited the existence of two radical centers, one neopopulist and bitter and the other moderate and comfortable.[25][41] According to historian Sam Tanenhaus, one of the strengths of Ted Halstead and Michael Lind's book The Radical Center (2001) is it attempts to weld the two supposed radical-centrist factions together.[2]

^A 1991 story in Time magazine with a similar title, "Looking for The Radical Middle", revealed the existence of a "New Paradigm Society" in Washington, D.C., a group of high-level liberal and conservative activists seeking ways to bridge the ideological divide.[42] The article discusses what it describes as the group's virtual manifesto, E. J. Dionne's book Why Americans Hate Politics.[43]

^In 2010, radical centrist Michael Lind stated that "to date, President Obama has been the soft-spoken tribune of the mushy middle".[29]

^Matthew Miller added an "Afterword" to the paperback edition of his book favoring formation of a "transformational third party" by the year 2010, if the two major parties remained stuck in their ways.[98]

^Peters used the term "neoliberal" to distinguish his ideas from those of neoconservatives and conventional liberals. His version of neoliberalism is separate from what came to be known internationally as neoliberalism.[102][103]

^In 1967, a novella by science fiction writer Mack Reynolds portrayed a conspiracy of powerful men that called itself the "Radical Center". They planned to take over the government by spreading an anything-goes morality that would make citizens selfish, apathetic, and non-judgmental.[143]

^Mouffe also criticized radical centrism for its "New Age rhetorical flourish".[145]

^ abHalstead, Ted, ed.(2004). The Real State of the Union: From the Best Minds in America, Bold Solutions to the Problems Politicians Dare Not Address. Basic Books, Chaps. 27–31. ISBN 978-0-465-05052-9.